ITU Goes Back On Multiple Promises: Makes Play For Internet Governance With Sneaky Surprise Vote

from the shameful dept

Well, well. In response to all of the earlier criticisms of the ITU, and as part of its "social media strategy" to stave off ongoing criticism, ITU officials had made a few promises leading up to the World Conference on International Communications (WCIT). Among them: (1) changes to International Telecom Regulations (ITRs) would be done via consensus, rather than simple majority vote and (2) that the whole thing was not about internet governance. In one move, the ITU appears to have proved both of those claims to be blatantly false. Late into the night in Dubai, as there was continuing "negotiations" over whether or not any new regulations would cover internet communications, Mohamed Nasser al Ghanim, the ITU summit's chairman, claiming he wanted to get "a feel for the room" took what initially looked like an informal vote on whether or not the ITRs would cover the internet, backing a proposal brought forth by Algeria (and backed by Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Nigeria). After the vote showed a majority agreed to expand the ITRs to cover the internet, al Ghanim announced:

"The majority is with having the resolution in...The majority agreed to adopt the resolution as amended."

This took a lot of people in the room by complete surprise, given that there was repeated insistence that the focus was on consensus, and not a simple majority vote. This clearly went against promises by ITU boss Hamadoun Toure. As Declan McCullagh summarizes in the article linked above:

"In the true tradition of the ITU, we will not vote on any issues," Toure told reporters over the summer. "Voting means winners and losers, and this is not simply acceptable. And we believe that we'll come to an agreement on all of the issues." Toure had said last week that the summit "is not about Internet governance."

As the reality of what al Ghanim did began to set in, some delegates began to protest. Spain, in particular, noted "had we known that it was a vote, we might very well have acted differently." al Ghanim then, ridiculously, tried to pretend the vote was not a vote:

But after Spain objected, al Ghanim responded by saying, "no, it was not a vote," and that he had instead been looking for a "feel of the room."

That, obviously, is completely ridiculous, since he then used "the feel of the room" to say that the resolution was adopted, despite significant concerns about it.

The folks at the Internet Society are, quite reasonably, not at all happy about the situation, and called out not just the sudden and unexpected vote, but the secrecy surrounding it as well:

The Internet Society came to this meeting in the hopes that revisions to the treaty would focus on competition, liberalization, free flow of information and independent regulation - things that have clearly worked in the field of telecommunications. Instead, these concepts seem to have been largely struck from the treaty text. Additionally, and contrary to assurances that this treaty is not about the Internet, the conference appears to have adopted, by majority, a resolution on the Internet. Amendments were apparently made to the text but were not published prior to agreement.

Given that the ITU's moves here more or less confirm many of the fears that have been raised about the whole WCIT process all along, and show that Toure's statements were simply untrue, why is it that anyone believes that the ITU has any credibility on this subject any more? The whole idea that we're now allowing countries with horrid human rights records, and with little to no experience in supporting innovation-enabling technologies, to control direction of these discussions suggests that the entire ITU process is broken beyond belief.

"more or less confirm many of the fears..."

Yeah, just as Google's relation with NSA confirms several. -- Get over your fears and admit the globalist conspiracy.

"why is it that anyone believes that the ITU has any credibility on this subject any more?" -- WHO believed that in the first place? Establish grounds.

Oh, but THIS can't be let pass: "The whole idea that we're now allowing countries with horrid human rights records, and with little to no experience in supporting innovation-enabling technologies, to control direction of these discussions suggests that the entire ITU process is broken beyond belief."

"we're" -- Who is this WE, Mike?
"allowing" -- Does this WE run the world?
"horrid human rights records" -- Such as invading countries on false pretext, bombing the hell out of them and killing a million, flattening entire cities as collective punishment, (Fallujah), seizing their resources, putting in place a mercenary army that can murder for sport, transporting persons overseas to cages without rights, systematic torture for amusement of guards -- THAT kind of human rights record?

Re: "more or less confirm many of the fears..."

Again, we're supposed to take you seriously? I rather back gorehound than support your crazy conspiracy, Blue.

And to answer your question: "we're" is referring to the public, that got these people in charge to get these people who are at the ITU there and make these decisions, "allowing" is saying that we, the people, can't do squat because we don't have the power to stop them, and... well, I got nothing on the last part.

... Well I could be totally off on that! But at least I can figure that out better than you can!

Blue... there's an entire world out there, both digitally and realistically. Please, from another human being, get off your lazy behind, walk to the front door and step outside. Take your keys with you, lock the door, and don't go back inside until the day is over with. Then maybe once you have some fresh outdoor air, maybe you'll think better instead of sounding like a crazy conspiracy theorist (not saying that you're already one).

Re: Re: "more or less confirm many of the fears..."

We do not want to have the ITU/UN put in charge of the Internet or have the ability to Control it.
We will not want Nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, ETC laying Laws down concerning the Internet.

This whole thing happening is a Combo of Two things:
Money............the usual reason throughout our known History.Money makes the greedy Happy !

Control:
Those in power can see the Natives are getting Restless ! And they have ways to get their Platform Out thru the Internet.Those in power do not like that Upstart pesky Internet.They want to Control it and Silence Dissent.

Re: Re: Re: "more or less confirm many of the fears..."

"Control:
Those in power can see the Natives are getting Restless ! And they have ways to get their Platform Out thru the Internet.Those in power do not like that Upstart pesky Internet.They want to Control it and Silence Dissent."

This moreso than money. After all, they've already consoldated most of the wealth. As you mentioned, they sense the growing dissent and want to clamp down on it.

Re: Out_of_his_gourd is an

Without addressing his points, you run the risk of being called the same thing. Personally, I have to agree that any ITU action is an international joke and holding out the US as a leading light in the area of human rights is laughable.

Re: Re: Out_of_his_gourd is an

Blue's reputation is so great and his writing is so disorganized that in certain cases it's difficult to understand his rants or rebuttals to the article. OOTB, I do have respect for your gull this time around, my only tip is to get a college level English writing class under your belt and take a communications class.

Re: Re: Out_of_his_gourd is an

His 'points' have been proven false time and time again to the point that his name is associated with lying and misinformation. His 'points' no longer need to be addressed and he only need further be mocked and ridiculed.

Authority?

I have been following TD's articles about the ITU, but it seems to me there's a logical leap that has not been explained.

Suppose the ITU ratifies its resolution to govern the Internet. How then does it have the authority to govern? Who will enforce the rules on every ISP around the world? What penalties apply for not following the rules?

Re: Authority?

Suppose the ITU ratifies its resolution to govern the Internet. How then does it have the authority to govern? Who will enforce the rules on every ISP around the world? What penalties apply for not following the rules?

It is true that it does not have authority directly to govern or enforce -- but it is generally considered the rulemaking body for many of these issues -- and the rules it comes up with quite frequently then show up in laws and treaties around the globe.

Could a country (i.e., the US) ignore them? Yes, but it would be a big deal, as the ITU's rules tend to be generally accepted...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Authority?

Spain and the rest of Europe and probably parts of SEA, Japan, South Korea and oceania. I will admit that many of even those countries politically want a more international governing body as opposed to the existing purely UK/US bodies, but I am certain that they have dropped the idea of using ITU after China and Russia has embraced ITU as the savior of all good in the world.

Re: Re: Authority?

Wasn't there a unanimous Congressional resolution telling the ITU to back off? Seems like a big joke, as Congress is already on the record calling bullshit. Not once have I seen the US placidly accept a UN resolution that it didn't agree with. Why would this be different. This story seems like alarmist nonsense and a waste of time.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Authority?

90% of the internet is based in, passes through or is managed by US-based organizations, entities, infrastructure et. al.

If the US decides that this will not happen, those 200 are pretty powerless to do anything about it without enormous downside.

You may not like that, but that's the reality. It's also true in a lot of other areas, not just the internet. Despite Europe & China and others, the US still has tremendous power, more than any other single entity. With the internet, it has dominance if not complete power.

Re: Re: Authority?

Mike there are some variable factors about the US that the ITU hasn't counted on. We account for over 60% of the world's web server traffic. We own over half the connecting nodes at a global scale and websites, and I'm absolutely sure that the ITU can suck it when it comes to the authority that the US actually holds over the rest of the world over the World Wide Web. I'm not talking about US government agency control, I'm talking about our nation's netizens.

As far as the ITU is concerned to the US senate, I had my uncle, who is a retired economics lawyer, look over the US senate resolution against ITU control of the internet over and over again. His conclusion is that it was not just a vote to vote no to the WITC resolution, but flat out boycott the ITU for trying to regulate Internet traffic.

As for my opinion, the ITU can go F**K itself for this. There have been many instances where they have messed with the global economy on a disastrous scale.

Re: Re: Authority?

Years ago, when I was involved with international standards-setting organizations (SSO), one of the first things we were told was that an international SSO derived such legitimacy as it had by the consensus process, rather than a 'majority rules' scheme. Consensus was (rather loosely) defined as the absence of significant opposition. This is the process that the ITU meeting was operating under ó until the chair surprised everyone by declaring a straw poll to be a 'majority rules' decision, despite significant opposition from multiple member countries.
If what we were told was true for all international SSOs (I found it affirmed in e. g. the ISO directives) and if it still holds, then ITU may have declared itself to be illegitimate by its own rules.
Of course, ISO de-legitimized itself by the way it allowed Microsoft to buy the IS26900 (is that the right number?) adoption some years ago, by the chair refusing to recognize significant opposition — and IS26900 has still not been implemented by anyone, including its buyer.

Re: Authority?

You don't understand how UN works. These are basically national governments deciding this stuff. THEY will enforce it in each country where they agreed to do it. And the ISP's will fully support it, too, especially if they get their part about killing net neutrality and charging all content providers for the content ran through their network.

Who cares what the ITU says?

the world ends in a week anyway!

/sarcasm

The US should just leave the U.N. and stop paying their way. We have mostly lost our influence, and I doubt we will be getting it back anytime soon, our leaders are too busy fighting among themselves to even see what is going on around them.

Oh great, the Islams control the internet. I can't wait for my Google start page to be replace with pictures of Muhammad and verses from the Qur'an about how women have to wear GPS tracking devices that page their husbands when they cross state lines. This is what the ITU has turned into. I think it's time for America to exit the ITU.